Broker claimed its' systems are too slow, permitting client to have an unfair information advantage. And the judge rules in favor of the broker, as apparently the client made a couple of misrepresentations when signing up... "Shurbanova used a "very fast news feed to place trades and close them out at the height of any price discrepancy between FXCM’s ‘slow’ retail price feeds and ‘fast’ price feeds, which reflected the prevailing market,” the broker’s lawyers said at trial" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-460-000-fight-with-retired-bulgarian-teacher
One clear reason to never fabricate information on your new account form. Lots of other issues here including shoddy treatment by the broker. That new account form will almost always be exhibit 1 in a courtroom.
Another trader who sued bucketshop forex broker and lost. They don't know those bucketshop forex brokers aka market makers have a slow price feed ON PURPOSE so it can charge you slippages, delay your executions, stop-hunt you ALL to their favour to GUARANTEE that you will LOSE money with them. If you ever make money with them, this is what happens. They accuse you of "abusing" their purposefully slow price feed and forfeit your profit. And you will never win with them in court because they can always justify in court how their price feed is correct and paint you as the "predatory trader". And those gullible judges who have no idea how forex trading works will always side with those brokers. Poor teacher, made $500K for nothing.
It looks to me the judge focused too much on the fact that the banned husband more or less signed up again on disguise. But what about this "broker"? Isn't this just an unregulated and unsupervised gambling den operating faulty roulette wheels and loaded dice (they themselves more or less admitted to that)? If so, did they ever bother to refund customers who LOST with the faulty wheel? If not, I do not understand the judge allowing them to avoid paying a winner once her wager was accepted.
A strict interpretation of the law. I would think that there would be precedence with casinos where bringing in disguises or lying about your age would require disgorgement of the profits.
Possible. I am not familiar with UK law in this regard. I read several (entertaining) books about those blackjack card counters that sometimes used disguises to get into casinos where they were barred previously. Once detected, they were "just" stopped from further play, sometimes intimidated by "security", but the casinos did not demand their prior profits back or refused to cash in their chips.
Doesn't anyone read about the classic traders any more? i.e. Jesse Livermore and bucket shops. Same with cryptocurrency trading but you know the crooks are trying all the time to hack your accounts. For the youngsters: If you trade an unregulated market with a (mostly) unregulated broker you will get burned. You might also get burned with regulated markets and brokers too, but there are warning signs that are fairly easy to spot. (hey, segregated trust accounts!!!)
Livermore also had to use disguises after the brokers learnt that he wins too often. Where is Hollywood with its Jesse biopic?